We value your privacy & take necessary steps to protect your information.
REQUEST A CALLBACK
The Indian economy relies significantly on the infrastructure sector, serving as a crucial driver for overall economic growth and national development. It is poised to play a vital role in achieving India's ambitious target of becoming a USD 5-trillion economy. The year 2023 has been pivotal for India's infrastructure, with expectations of a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.2% by 2027. The Indian Government has made substantial investments to modernize the aging infrastructure, aiming to transform the country into a self-sufficient economy with an increased global export share. Over the past few years, there has been a notable uptick in deal activity within the sector, experiencing a CAGR of nearly 16%. Road assets have predominantly been acquired by platforms and strategic investors, closely followed by financial investors. However, the Indian roads from infrastructure point of view has a few pitfalls such as LMPD, approval delays etc.
Yearly roundup for Roads segment in infrastructure projects
Examining recent legislative developments:
Judicial Developments:
Delhi High Court's Position on Arbitral Award Challenges:
The Delhi High Court, in the case of National Highways Authority of India v Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd (Trichy), has clarified that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court lacks the authority to modify an arbitral award. Instead, it can surgically set aside separable portions of the award. This clarification, while not a novel concept, gains significance in light of the Supreme Court's decision in NHAI v. M. Hakeem. The Delhi High Court's ruling aims to strike a balance between minimal court intervention in arbitral awards and preventing the loss of an entire award due to a partial defect. The prospect of losing an entire arbitral award due to a partial defect is a feared outcome for those holding the award. The recent judgment from the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the practice of selectively setting aside awards in India. The court has successfully struck a balance, ensuring minimal court intervention in arbitral awards while preventing an injustice. This ruling establishes a measured approach to address flaws without jeopardizing the entire award, thus promoting fairness in the arbitration process.
Supreme Court's Stance on Arbitral Tribunal Decisions:
In a judgment dated August 24, 2023, in Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India, the Supreme Court addressed a series of appeals concerning the interpretation of a contractual condition. The court emphasized that when an arbitral tribunal, consisting of technical experts in the relevant subject matter, provides a plausible interpretation of a technical contract condition, courts should refrain from applying a corrective lens. The limited grounds stipulated in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside arbitral awards should be strictly adhered to. This approach aims to uphold the sanctity of arbitration proceedings, especially in cases where technical expertise is crucial.
National Highway Authority of India v. TK Toll Pvt Ltd:
The High Court examined whether the Arbitral Tribunal's failure to acknowledge the significance of the Standstill Agreement (SA), wherein parties agreed not to raise claims related to project delays, constituted a bar on claims. The court noted evidence presented by the Contractor's expert witness, attributing a delay of 1668 days to NHAI for not handing over the project site and a 300-day delay to the Contractor. The court observed that the Contractor might not have overlooked NHAI's delay unless there was pressure to sign the SA. Lately, there has been a rising trend in the execution of supplementary agreements, which frequently curtail contractors' options to seek damages. The control wielded by state-backed authorities over elements like time extensions and the imposition of liquidated damages often puts contractors in a position where they have little choice but to comply with these requirements. This ruling aptly acknowledges the evident power asymmetry in such scenarios and moves towards reinstating the legal and contractual rights of contractors. It's important to highlight that the assertion of coercion and/or duress needs to be substantiated based on the specific facts of each case.
Business Development Overview:
Challenges and Opportunities in Project Finance:
In the Indian legal landscape, when LMPD is solely attributable to the contractor, contractual and legal remedies may be available to the employer. Standard form contracts used by government agencies, like the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) or the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), often prescribe liquidated damages for contractor-attributable LMPD. These damages are typically calculated as a percentage of the contract amount and applied periodically up to a specified delay cap. Contractual exposure for LMPD includes potential impacts such as non-receipt of milestone-linked payments, encashment of contractor's bank guarantees, or even contract termination, depending on the severity of the delays.
Under Indian law, contractors may also be liable to pay damages for LMPD. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 codifies the award of damages, aiming to place the non-defaulting party in the same position if the contract had been performed. Damages are quantified based on the provisions under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, construction disputes present complex challenges, particularly in terms of Delay Mapping and unforeseen Extra Items during project execution. Policy framers need to address issues such as time-bound land acquisition and clearances to avoid delays in government-run projects. Additionally, effective implementation of the National Logistics Policy requires close coordination between central and state governments. A multi-dimensional approach is necessary to navigate the intricate landscape of construction-related challenges in project finance. Speaking of which, while the Vivad se Vishwas is a much lauded scheme, it has its own set of ambiguities bringing the question, “to apply for settlement or to not apply?”. The definitions of a Court Award and an Arbitral Award within the current framework exhibit a certain degree of ambiguity, particularly in relation to the inclusion of Arbitral Awards under challenge. The term Court Award encompasses situations where parties have 'approached the courts,' while an Arbitral Award comprises awards that 'may be under challenge.' This dual inclusion raises interpretational uncertainties and necessitates a closer examination to ensure clarity and consistency within the legal framework.
Given these complexities, it becomes imperative for legal counsels representing Contractors to provide comprehensive legal guidance. This includes a thorough review of the viability of pursuing a settlement under the Scheme, meticulous calculations of the awarded amount at the claim filing stage, assessment of the Procuring Entity's offer, preparation of a well-crafted withdrawal application seeking liberty to revive the petition if the settlement falters, scrutiny of the terms within the settlement agreement, and strategies for enforcing the agreement in case of breach by the procuring entity. These legal considerations are vital to safeguarding the interests of the Contractor and navigating potential challenges that may arise throughout the settlement process.